"/.../the West needs to rethink its military strategies in order to counter new tactics, paramilitary and psychological, that Russia has begun to deploy. But we could also begin to think even more strategically about the threat to both the eastern and the western halves of Europe that is posed by Russian influence on international energy markets in general, and on European natural gas pipelines in particular. I don’t mean the immediate threat to turn off the gas but rather the long-term threat posed by companies such as Gazprom, state entities in everything but name, and their monopolistic practices. The danger they pose is both political and economic. Gazprom goes out of its way to hire senior European politicians, including former German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder , and spends millions trying to influence political decisions across the continent."

Maybe we could really do that, and switch to Canada and USA for the supply of the politically and economically crucial hydrocarbons? Now that any form of West's dependence on post-fascist Putinite Russia seems too risky? To use a parallel from the past century, which shaped our present reality, would anyone want to depend on raw materials on Hitlerite Germany and dream of independence?

"A European Union thinking strategically about its future would create an energy union, as some have already suggested, and begin to bargain collectively for its gas. Europeans should also step up construction of the infrastructure needed to import, transport and store liquefied natural gas (LNG). The United States should step up its own efforts to export LNG. At the same time, the United States should take advantage of the shift to shale oil and build the Keystone XL pipeline. A low international oil price is not only bad for the autocrats who run Russia, Venezuela and other petro-states; it’s also good for American allies. This doesn’t mean that the hunt for alternative energy needs to end. But until the miracle fuel is discovered, it would be a lot safer if the West were supplied by the Canadians."

The situation is favorable for both the intra-European energy union and the fundamental change in the major direction of supply routes. François Hollande is sympathetic towards Donald Tusk's proposition. Angela Merkel, who perfectly well understands the imponderabilia of dependence from Russia, is the German chancellor. What will happen to West's independence if we don't change anything in energy security and another "Gerhard Schroeder" comes to this office?

On the issue: Currently, Germany has offered Ukraine resales of gas in case Russia suspends supplies. Ukraine will receive the gas through a bi-directional pipeline linking Germany with Ukraine via the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

As I have mentioned earlier and this case shows, it is the necessary infrastructure (bi-directional pipelines) which will keep Ukraine supplied in case Russia suspends its deliveries - whereas Russia could still have interrupted supplies to Ukraine if e.g. Germany and Ukraine had formed a buying cooperative.

Tusk demands uniform prices for gas (for which Poland pays more than EU member states on average), but refuses uniform prices for sources of energy that are particulaly cheap in Poland (coal).

Such "selective socialism" won't fly, and the last to agree to it will be the French - usually not the shyest defenders of the national interest.

Further development of bi-directional interconnectors are included in Donald Tusk's proposition of energy union. Which project is now supported by a whole group of countries including Poland, France, Spain, Portugal, Hungary, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia.

Ukraine cannot be a part of energy union as long as she remains out of EU. Besides, the newly opened interconnector between Slovakia and Ukraine is 70 cm in diameter (read: it is very narrow). It is unfit to provide energy security. Even if the number of interconnectors would have been sufficient, both inside EU and between the Union and eg. Ukraine, the resale of the gas cannot provide long-term safety, the way energu union would. Besides, in case of Ukraine especially, the resale of gas would be just changing the dependence from Russia on dependence on Germany. No sane authorities would agree to that - there is too high a risk that after Merkel another Schroeder will come to office, and clandestinely act in the interests of Russia, not the EU.

So in the long run - I guess there is no alternative to buying gas from Russia jointly by the EU. Each member would then pay less, Russia would not be able to use gas as a political tool, and Germany would not be able to win competitive advantage over fellow EU members through murky business with Kremlin (as is the case in Schroeder-Putin deal and cooperation over energy).

Why don't you read the Energy Union project before trying to critisize it?
Of course Spain and Portugal are relevant, the energy union is not just about Russian gas and those like you, who want to increase German competitive advantage earned through murky deals with Putin's Russia.
Also, Angela Merkel, does support the energy union, even if less enthusiastically than e.g. Hollande, (she is wary in part due to existence of the stance for example you, a German American, present here)

Mr Tusk's plan for an "energy union" is not exactly a new one -- it has been ventured by the Polish government time and again for years. And there's nothing wrong with trying to improve Poland's competitive position by invoking security reasons. I simply doubt Tusk will manage to win sufficient support for his plan.

Mr Merkel's understanding of "energy union" is a different one, so much is for sure. Today, the G 7 (which include Russia's two largest clients for natural gas, Germany and Italy) agreed to advance European energy security vis à vis Russia by increasing diversification, energy efficiency and investment in infrastructure, as DER SPIEGEL reports. Tusk's buying cooperative was not mentioned (below, in German):

Spiegel link is a relation from G7 meeting and it does mention solidarity with Poland, among others.
Maybe it will be easier if you read a Polish link then to understand
that the West is fed up with energetic dependence from Russia. Which is going to be ended in the long-run, no matter what you are sure Merkel might think about it.

As you understood correctly (and as I mentioned in my earlier comment), the G7 agree to "show solidarity" with Eastern European EU members such as Poland by the means listed in the SPIEGEL article:
- More diversification,
- more energy efficiency and
- more investment in (trans-national) infrastructure (bi-directional pipelines).

Tusk's proposal to form a buying cooperative and thus have uniform prices for Russian gas was NOT mentioned by the G7.

The problem with Donald Tusk's proposal for an "energy union" is this:

He is basically asking fellow EU members to surrender their competitive advantage in one domain (lower prices for Russian gas thanks to their countries' higher diversification of supply sources) -- while at the same time, he fights hard to keep Poland's competitive advantage in another field (exemptions from the full application EU's emission standards to Poland's coal-fired power stations) for longer than originally agreed.

And that's why it is hard to see anybody agree to this proposal – notably when for security reasons, the pooling of demand is unneccessary: The supply of all EU member states in case of supply interruptions is secured by physical means (bi-directional pipelines), not by forming a buying cooperative.

Tusks "security concerns" are therefore a pretext - his initiative is mainly motivated by economic considerations.

The security of supplies and economic considerations are parts of the same issue in case of energy.

The present situation enables Kremlin to meddle both inside the EU, and in the sensitive region between EU and Russia. It is done through "awarding" with low gas price the obedient countries, and "punishing" with high gas price those countries which stand up to Putin's Russia revanchism or simply want to become independent (as is the case in Ukraine).

Your comment suggests though, that there's a will in at least some part of German public, to use and prolong this Kremlin-inspired divide et impera situation for the benefit of own country at the cost of fellow EU members.
As the reaction of François Hollande to Donald Tusk's plan suggests ("from now on I want this initiative to be called a joint Polish-French project") the problem is recognised in Paris too.
It remains an open question if Italy will side with those EU countries which are committed to re-enactment of true common market and true unity in the spirits of the initial values and ideas initially promoted by European Movement International, Józef Retinger, Jean Monnet, Robert Schuman, Altiero Spinelli, Alcide De Gasperi and others.
Unfortunately it seems doubtful since Italy at present seems to be simply concentrated on building own export advantage over EU partners. Which is a shame as Italian clear stance for increasing the energy security and decreasing Kremlin-inspired inequality in competitiveness inside EU, would be crucial for the success of this plans which would increase EU's competitiveness as a whole.

"The security of supplies and economic considerations are parts of the same issue in case of energy."

___________________________

No, they are not, as I have explained - and certainly not for a country such as Poland, which is one of the LEAST dependent on e.g. Russian gas (gas represents merely 8 % of the total Polish energy consumption, and Russian gas less than 5 %).

Invoking the principle of European solidarity whenever YOUR own (commercial) interests are concerned and denying it applies when you are asked to play by the same rules as everybody else (as in the case of introducing emission caps for coal at the agreed-upon date), is an overused rhetorical trick.

What is and what is not in the greater European interest is not decided in Warsaw, but by consensus among European partners. That is how democratic (international) organisations such as the EU work.

Gas union is a win-win situation for everybody in EU. Every country will pay less for gas if Russia is not able to play one EU member against another. Probably much bigger economical benefit is nullifying a political risk of Russia to all sectors of economy. Probably non-EU members will be attracted to this gas union, further strengthening EU position.
Ideal would be EU-China cooperation on gas imports from Russia. Russian tactics is just playing one gas importer against another. Time to finish it.

Exactly. This is clear and understandable for everyone who is a bona fide supporter of clear rules, just competition and the EU's integral prosperity. Sadly, such persons are recently rare in TE comment's section, which becomes a Speaker's Corner of all kinds of people, some commenting on matters they obviously have no idea about and then seemingly self-recommending own posts.

This being your first-ever comment, I must say I'm thrilled that you took the pains to sign up as a commentator just to jump in to reply to a comment I made in the middle of a conversation. (So funny.)

Apart from that: If there's anything in the term "competitive advantage" that you don't (or whoever doubles as you doesn't) understand, let me know.

Or ask Polish prime minister Tusk why he is fighting tooth and nail to keep the exemptions from carbon emissions caps for Polish coal plants that give Poland a COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE over its EU peers, and which were only granted temporarily. If Tusk is so keen on levelling the playing field, this is where he could start.

It is the opposite. Pushing for ambitious emission cuts without taking into account the different stages of development of EU parts, is a way of gaining more unfair competitive advantage. On the other hand, the too short terms for getting to emission restrictions for EU as a whole act against the Unions competitive force towards the external world (even if it promotes intra-EU competitive force of the countries most ready/willing to fight "tooth and nail" for the restrictions, which is Germany, Netherlands and Austria).

I find the article bafflingly imprecise. It is a surprise because in the past TE published several extremely well-informed and insightful articles on the energy in Central Europe (eg. "Power out(r)age", "Going nuclear").

Shale gas is just one piece in energy security jig-saw puzzle.

Polish government is too slow with the shale gas and is indeed an easy target for criticism in many other aspects. But the energy policy is one of the bright points. Some points:

1. Shale gas extraction- as pointed out in the article - goes scandalously slow, due to slow and large state apparatus. Nonetheless the first commercial use of local shale gas is expected this year.

3. The North-South Gas Corridor project is now concluded. It connects the LNG Terminal in Świnoujście on the Baltic Sea, NW Poland, runs through central Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary with the proposed Adria LNG terminal in Croatia. The Corridor enables the bi-directional flow of gas through the system of gas connections/domestic gas pipelines between the Baltic Sea and Adriatic Sea. Quite a revolution in European scale, freeing the V4 and other Central European countries from the traditional dependence from East-West gas transport routes, and from lack of proper common energy policy of the EU enabling Gazprom to "divide and rule". The latter is the main source of Poland's high gas price NOT the slow rate at extracting the shale gas. Germans don't pay less for the gas because they have developed shale gas, as the author inadvertently suggests

5. The decision to build a nuclear plant was taken, in line with the declared long-term plan of the present government for Poland as energy exporter.

6. It was, among other factors, the Polish long-term lobbying action in EU which resulted with recent recommendations of the European Commission for the exploitation and extraction of shale gas in EU member states.

All that is hardly doing nothing and turning only to political means to secure energy security.

Must say, very poor article, borderline propaganda actually. Firstly, shale gas development isnt slow because of beurocracy, but rather because there isnt much of it. Secondly, Poland pays a higher price for Russian gas then Germany because it has not diversified. Which it is doing. By 2015, when the LNG port opens up in Świnoujście, the country will be completely free of Russian gas if it wants to. This means come next contracts for gas, if Gazprom doesnt give a good price it will be imported from elsewhere. This was impossible until now as there was no LNG port and whatever price Gazprom has thrown, we had to pay. A contract for supply for supply of gas is already signed with Qatar. Thirdly, Poland is one of the LEAST gas dependant countries in the world. Most homes in Poland do not even have gas connected, and if they do its probably gas bottles not mains. Most electricity is produced from coal, most central heating is produced from electricity; with hot water being pumped around to heat homes; hence why its called "central" heating. No need for gas there. The country produces approx. 35% of its annual gas needs from domestic extraction, which is enough to power all the homes in the country; the other 65% being used up by industry.

Please get your facts right, its not Ukraine youre talking about. This article is borderline propaganda.

This reminds me of the Grasshopper and the Ant. The Polish government cannot or will not get out of its own way to promote shale gas development. Russia is all sunshine as it provides 60% of Polish need, and the Grasshopper is safe and happpy. But now Russia has clouded over and grown cold, and the Polish Grasshopper fears a storm. What to do? Turn to the European Ant to save you from your own irresponsibility.

Mr Tusk tries to wind up all EU leaders to stop buying Russian gas. Hatred is ingrained in Poles since the times of Catherine II and last King of Poland Ponyatovski. However in spite of all the so called sanctions and appeals to stop buying Russian gas, Austria signed an agreement today to join South stream with Gazprom.
Furthermore during Putin’s visit to China later in May this year gas contract will be signed to supply 38 billion cubic meters of gas to China. I hope Poland will manage to cover 60% of its need with shale gas developments.

"Hatred" is too strong a word. As a Warsaw resident for 20+ years the general feelings of all but the nutty right are a combination of well-founded mistrust of Russia, whose rulers have treated them cruelly in the past,and pity for the people who suffered most of all from Stalinism.
Kuzmich should note that Poles do have grounds for thinking negatively about Catherine II - she was after all the prime mover in the partitions of Poland which removed Poland from the map of Europe for 123 years.

Germany and the rest of the EU have been good friends with Poland since the end of the Cold War (and supportive of their struggle against Russian Brutalism and occupation before then).
Russia is, again, a clear and present danger to Poland's prosperity and the independence of it's neighbours RIGHT NOW.
No wonder Poland is cautious about Russia, and talking to it's friends in the West to see how their situation can be improved. Who wouldn't?

when you said, "Poland gets its Russian gas from the Yamal pipeline that runs across Ukraine", you must have meant, "polakistania gets its gas from the yamal pipeline that runs across BELARUS..."
.
...except you go on to say... "...which makes it very vulnerable in the event of a potential cut-off in gas flows due to tensions between Kiev and Moscow."
.
.
so it's pretty clear that you didnt make a mistake, you're just trying to needle the story a little bit...
.
...and i got to admit it makes a better story, but it's simply not the truth
.http://www.trubagaz.ru/im/europe_gas_pipelines.png?1024:768

after poland rejects yamal II, the russians will expand the nord stream bypassing poland, which makes sense in light of europe's falling natural gas production and its growing demand... so the neocons will blame putin for... what?

Poland has not rejected expansion of the Yamal pipeline. A Polish-Russian agreement provides for its doubling and the Poles, after some misgivings in the mid-1990s, have pressed for this to be implemented. Instead Russia has built the Nordstream pipeline specifically to avoid a major part of its gas supply to Western Europe from having to pass through Belarus and Poland and to allow it to use its gas weapon against Poland without hurting Germany.

When a nation imports 60% of its gas and has shale gas reserves it does make sense to exploit them. Given that those reserves will provide only a temporary respite shouldn't even more attention be focused on conservation and developing other forms of energy?

In particular, in January & February this year, Poland generated 93% more wind electricity than in the same two months of 2013: 1,615 GWh of wind electricity (6.3% of total electricity production). That compares with 13,752 GWh (54%) from hard coal, 8,152 GWh (32%) from lignite and just 451 GWh (1.8% of production) from gas generation.

If renewable (or domestic coal) power is to replace gas consumption in Poland, then Poland will need to replace its domestic heating systems with electric heating (or with district heating coal boilers). Investment in insulation and structures would help; but any substitution away from gas (partial or complete) will require massive investment in infrastructure and private properties. As things stand, gas prices are not high enough (and electricity prices are not low enough) to give the strong impetus required here.

Granted: it is more persistent. With high probability, fertilizer will continue to be gas-manufactured for the next hundred years.

But manufacture of fertilizer is a small industry in Poland (as with other gas-dependent petrochemical plants). The value added is a small proportion of GDP - Poland could easily work down inventory or import fertilizer on global markets if domestic production was stopped.

The far bigger problem is that gas is used for domestic heating (and workplace heating, etc). Heating of buildings is responsible for over two thirds of Polish gas consumption. And that is an application with no easy substitutes - if the gas supply stops, everyone is forced to wear heavy jumpers indoors.

Gas has been expensive for a long time here. People who can't afford an electric heater are already burning wood or coal. Your assertion that there's no easy substitution is simply absurd. For crying out loud, people are burning garbage. Anything that can be substituted with garbage is probably not irreplaceable.

Coal burnt crudely would be a cheap substitute, but results in unacceptable levels of pollution - particulates knock many months from Polish life expectancy already. Better to burn gas or use electric heating (where even coal-derived electricity is better for human health than burning coal in cities).

Substitution away from gas requires some investment - electric boilers in every house.

It would happen in time (15-20 years) if electric heating were much cheaper than gas heating. It is not. Gas remains far cheaper even in Poland. In 2013, average Polish household prices were €10.61/ GJ for gas, and €32.08/ GJ for electricity (€0.1155/ kWh). So long as electricity remains expensive, Polish consumers will choose to depend on Russian gas for their heating.

A deliberate anti-gas strategy would probably be inexpedient. It is not realistic to expect wind powered heating, solar powered heating or lung-friendly coal powered heating to beat gas any time soon. Rather, the better approach is to undermine Gazprom's power through (A) diversification of origin (increasing capacity from Iran, from the Caspian, from North Africa, from LNG) and (B) building an EU distribution grid and joint spot market, so that the Kremlin cannot discriminate between end customers.

It's called a fireplace. Most older homes have one (or more). While burning wood or coal fouls up the air and kills dozens each winter, people do it because it's cheap. The notion that Poles would freeze without gas is flat out untrue.

Majority of city residents have district heating. Cogeneration is by far the most energy efficient arrangement. In Poland, the fuel of choice is of course coal.

Personally, I have electric heating. It's expensive, but not that much more so compared to gas. The heater is on a timer so that it only draws power during off-peak hours. During the day, residual heat in the column is enough to keep the room warm.

I've never seen a modern apartment building fith a fireplace in every flat...I presume to equip all the existing apartment buildings of a big country with this kind of heating would require a discreet amount of money...And I would not try to ask that money to the landlords (it would take terrific fiscal discounts, and I mean TERRIFIC...)...